alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for
June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0001109304
<NAME>     ARMSTRONG HOLDINGS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      530
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                        432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,066
<PP&E>                                           2,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              752
<BONDS>                                          1,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                         460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,044
<SALES>                                          1,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,608
<CGS>                                            1,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (33)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (75)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     113
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        38
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4.1
-----------



                           FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                       JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED
                        EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

      This Fourth Amendment to the Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated Employee
Stock Purchase Plan is made as of May 28, 2004.


                                  RECITALS

      WHEREAS, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (the "Company") maintains
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended by the First Amendment, Second
Amendment and Third Amendment thereto (as amended, the "Plan").

      WHEREAS, the Company has determined that amending the Plan in order
to increase the number of shares available for issuance thereunder is in
the best interest of the Company.

      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved, and recommended approval by
the shareholders of, an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of
shares available for issuance thereunder by 750,000, and the shareholders
of the Company approved such amendment at the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders held May 27, 2004.


                                  AMENDMENT

      NOW THEREFORE, the Plan has been amended effective May 28, 2004 as
follows:

      1.    PARAGRAPH 2 of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing the
reference to "1,000,000 shares" in the first sentence thereof with a
reference to "1,750,000 shares."

      Except as herein modified, all the terms, conditions and provisions
of the Plan are hereby ratified, confirmed and carried forward.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment has been duly executed on
behalf of the Company by an authorized officer thereof as of the date first
written above.

                                    JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED

                                    By:   /s/ Nazneen Razi
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Nazneen Razi
                                          Chief Human Resources Officer
#### William D. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 39077.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1965.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Speeding is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Appellant’s conviction resulted from a trial de novo in County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, after an appeal from a conviction in the Corporation Court of the City of Austin.

This court’s jurisdiction in appeals originating in the Corporation Court is limited to convictions where the fine assessed exceeds $100. Art. 53, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Hoover v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 355 S.W.2d 527; Butler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 469.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 15380 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 20 15

– 5639

Mr. David Liddell

Owner/Operator

Chandelle

P.O. Box 50176

Phoenix, AZ 85076

Dear Mr. Liddell :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 22, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Chandelle (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an

amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ),

61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a)

, 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You

requested an amendment to change the compa ny name from Chandelle Consulting to

Chandelle

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determi ned that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 15380

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Chandelle is hereafter referred to as the operator. All conditions

and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 15380 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or resci ssion of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on March 31, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
#### Troy Onett HARRISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27323.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $150.

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment herein recites that the jail term was probated.

In compliance with the holding in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W.2d 106, the judgment herein is reformed so as to eliminate the provision for probation and, as reformed, is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Humberto MUNOZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27924.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1956.

J. Earl Barnhouse, Alice, for .appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for negligent homicide of the second degree. The unlawful act relied upon as constituting that offense is the driving, while intoxicated, of a motor vehicle upon a public highway.

The information alleges also negligence and carelessness and the death of the deceased caused thereby.

. . Thé punishment was assessed at eighteen months in jail.

*730In Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S. W.2d 400, 401, where the conviction was for negligent homicide of the second degree upon the same allegations in the information as in this case, we said:

> “At the outset, we are confronted with the contention' that the misdemeanor offense of drunken driving may not be utilized and relied upon as the unlawful act constituting negligent homicide of the second degree.

> “By Art. 802c, Vernon’s P.C., it is a felony for an intoxicated driver of ' an automobile to kill another person by accident or mistake. Being a felony, such crime could not be prosecuted as the misdemeanor offense of negligent homicide of the second degree. McCarthy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 190; Flowers v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 467, 202 S.W.2d 462, 203 S.W.2d 539.”

The Jones case is here applicable and controlling and calls for a reversal and dismissal of this prosecution.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Mrs. G. R. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30809.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1959.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is under Art. 567b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., for the giving of a worthless check in the amount of $15, with punishment assessed at 30 days in jail and a fine of $25.

 The complaint upon which the information is based fails to allege that the check was given with intent to defraud. The intent to defraud is an essential element of the offense. Art. 567b, Sec. 1, supra; Kuykendall v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 607, 160 S.W.2d 525. Being an essential element of the offense, such intent should have been alleged in the complaint. Browder v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 375, 292 S.W.2d 342, and McCormick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 323 S.W.2d 462.

A valid complaint is a prerequisite to a valid information. Addison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 55.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00471-CR

Caleb Patrick DANIELS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-10-00155-CRF

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s October 1, 2021 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 2, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Diane Bjorkstrom, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Tvia, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2005     /s/ Diane Bjorkstrom        Diane Bjorkstrom  Chief Financial Officer and Vice  President, Administration
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1556 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 206
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1556

                          [Report No. 112-306]

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow certain land to be 
 used to generate income to provide funding for academic programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

  Mr. Lujan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            December 1, 2011

       Additional sponsors: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Heinrich

                            December 1, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow certain land to be 
 used to generate income to provide funding for academic programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND USE.

    Section 824(a) of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law 
106-568) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Limitation for Educational, Health, Cultural, and Economic 
Development Purposes.--The land taken into trust under section 823(a) 
shall be used solely for the educational, health, or cultural purposes 
of the Santa Fe Indian School and economic development projects that 
provide funding for such purposes.''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 206

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1556

                          [Report No. 112-306]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow certain land to be 
 used to generate income to provide funding for academic programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 1, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### Andrew Bruce WILLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29777.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 30, 1958.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Ben Ellis, Carl E. Broyles and A. D. Jim Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The judgment was rendered on September 4, 1957, appellant’s first amended motion *644for new trial was overruled on October IS, 1957, and notice <pf appeal was given and entered of record on’November 7, 1957.

The' term of court during which this case was tried began on September 2, 1957, and ended on November 2, 1957.

It was necessary under the record that notice of appeal be given during the term in which the judgment was rendered in order'to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon .this court. Art. 827, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Terry Johnson/R6/USEPA/US 01/19/2012 06:06 PM To a-and-r-docket@epa.gov cc Carl Young/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Lynde Schoellkopf/R6/USEPA/US@EPA bcc Subject Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008 – 0476 1 attachment TX Violating Monitors.xlsx The attached Excel spreadsheet contains the daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for all ambient ozone monitors in the state of Texas during the years 2006 - 2010 on days in which the ozone standard was exceeded. The tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet separate the data by year, so there is a tab for 2006, 2007, 2008, etc. The last tab to the right, labeled "2006 - 2010 TSD Monitors" contains data for the entire 5-year period from 2006 - 2010 from the monitors in the DFW and Houston areas that were referenced in our Technical Support Document and wind back trajectory analyses, as well as two additional monitors, the Hood County/Granbury monitor and the Denton airport monitor. This information is readily accessible to the public at the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) ambient monitoring website at the following address: http :// www . tceq . state . tx . us / cgi - bin / compliance / monops / 8 hr

_ exceed . pl

Terry Johnson U.S. EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section 214-665-2154
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                                     |  |                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Name and State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation                |  | RegistrantsPercentage Ownership
|U. S. Subsidiaries                                                   |  |                                 
|                                                                     | 
|C/P Products Corp, an Indiana corporation                            |  | 100%                            
|United Sales and Warehouse of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation       |  | 100%                            
|                                                                     | 
|Foreign Subsidiaries:                                                |  |                                 
|                                                                     | 
|The Coast Distribution System (Canada) Inc., Quebec, Canada          |  | 100%                            
|Ai-wek a.k.a Eurasia Recreational Vehicle Accessories Taiwan Company |  | 100%                            

In accordance with the instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation
S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not have constituted a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 2007.
#### ARGONAUT UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Cecil ELLIS, Appellee.

No. 3434.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Jan. 30, 1959.

*918Harris, Anderson, Henley & Rhodes, Dallas, for appellant.

Scarborough, Black & Tarpley, Abilene, for appellee.

WALTER, Justice.

Cecil Ellis recovered judgment against Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Company for the sum of $156 for benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq.

The Industrial Accident Board denied Ellis’ claim. He appealed to the justice court in Nolan County where he took a default judgment. The insurance company appealed to the County Court, in which court Ellis made a motion for judgment on three grpunds, namely, since the-appeal was from a default judgment ini the justice court, the insurance company-waived any defense to said cause of action; that notice of appeal from the judgment in the justice court was not properly presented and the appeal bond filed' was not in an amount double the amount required by Rule 571, Texas Rules of Civil’ Procedure. On this motion judgment was. entered for Ellis. The insurance company has appealed from such judgment contending that none of the grounds set forth-in appellee’s motion entitled him to a. judgment.

We hold the County Court had' appellate jurisdiction from the default judgment in the justice court. Article 5,. Section 16, Constitution of State of Texas,. Vernon’s Ann.St. The judgment in the justice court provided that the insurance-company was dissatisfied and then and. there in open court gave notice of appeal. Appellee has referred us to no authority-in support of his position that no proper-notice of appeal was given and we have-been unable to find any. The appellant timely filed an appeal bond which was defective in that it was for only $200 and. not double the amount of the judgment required by Rule 571. In its answer to-appellee’s motion for judgment the appellant tendered an amended appeal bond, for the proper amount. This is permitted by Rules 571 and 430, R.C.P. Also see Hervey v. Forse, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W.2d 701.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.